The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[swerve]

... it's interesting watching the references to how badly managed the project was. I think going to P8 instead of MR4 would be a big leap forward in terms of capability and reliability.

Ian

I'm trying to remember where I read about the BAe senior engineer who was sacked after refusing to sign the relevant part of the MRA4 bid. IIRC, he felt that the project had been hugely underbid, & was far more complicated & riskier than the bid made out. He was replaced with someone who'd do as he told, whatever his private thoughts.

He was right, of course. Some of the specific issues he'd said hadn't been properly assessed (e.g. the precise state of the old airframes) came back to bite. If they had been, I suspect that new-build aircraft would have been seen as more sensible.

I think that there's been a lot more mismanagement since, because those issues were tripped over fairly early on. I've heard rumours about the combat system & integration. Meanwhile, CASA/Airbus Military has bid for, won, & completed a contract to modernise P-3s for Spain, & is delivering the aircraft for a similar contract for Brazil, with relatively small cost & time overruns. Strip down & re-life the airframes (some new structural components needed in both cases) refurbish engines, fit an entirely new combat system, sensors, cockpit, etc. Total cost for 13 upgrades ca 15% of the MRA4 project.

 

[swerve]

I was thinking more would this lead the way for a similar joint approach with the French. The nEUROn seems to be in the same space and cooperation with France is flavour of the month.

Ah, I see. Slight misunderstanding. Yes, that makes sense. Given the similarity between the two technology demonstrators, a similar joint full-scale aircraft development seems feasible. If BAe & Dassault can work together happily, then the organisational arrangements should work. The smaller nEUROn partners have already conceded project leadership to Dassault. Joint BAe/Dassault leadership doesn't affect the relationship much.

 

[swerve]

The large size will hopefully allow for a very high pay load and incredibly long endurance, hopefully it will come mounted with two engines with built-in redundancy should one engine fail.

If, as seems likely, it's based on the jet Mantis proposal, then it'll be twin-engined.

 

[riksavage]

If, as seems likely, it's based on the jet Mantis proposal, then it'll be twin-engined.

I'm hoping Mantis II will be the future host of MASC, a step change over rotary, but cheaper than an E2 to operate.

RAF/FAA are to send pilots on an extended week French language course prior to being attached to CdG. The right wing press are crying in their G&T's and raising the 'Nelson rolling in his grave' cliche.

Sounds like a pretty good idea to me, if plans remain in place to share active carriers. With FAA & RAF personnel attached to both the USN and French Navy there should hopefully be enough carrier qualified pilots ready for the first F35C conversion unit. It also means the FAA remains a credible force until the F35C arrives, I was worried they would lose their fast air role to the RAF and be confined to rotary wing only now the GR9's are gone.

I'm convinced the French will delay PA2 and will simply make do with cross-decking airframes to the QE whilst CdG is in refit, which I suspect will happen after the first QE is commissioned, but before the F35C becomes available. Ironic that the first fast jets to deploy aboard an RN carrier will be foreign, that won't be lost on the Torygraph.

 

[kev 99]

Screw the Torygraph, learning French is a great idea if it keeps the FAA in jobs.

As for first jets aboard QE, I don't care if they are French, if it smooths over all the necessary trials to get QE worked up then so be it.

 

[riksavage]

Screw the Torygraph, learning French is a great idea if it keeps the FAA in jobs.

As for first jets aboard QE, I don't care if they are French, if it smooths over all the necessary trials to get QE worked up then so be it.

Too bloody right!

The Libya crisis is a timely reminder of the need for the UK and France to work very closely together. They have complimentary capabilities and a taste for getting stuck-in when required.

Seeing a mix of Rafale and F35C's aboard a QE on a global fly the flag tour escorted by an Astute, T45, Horizon, FREMM and T23/26 (all equipped with Aster/CAMM) keeps Europe in the global power game. Hopefully the F35C's capabilities will compliment that of the Rafale when it becomes the sole French maritime multi-role aircraft. Add in a common future UCAV and Europe will retain a credible maritime force complete with next generation ISTAR systems.

This joint approach is one of the bright specks of light on what has been a pretty gloomy horizon.

 

[Seaforth]

Too bloody right!

Seeing a mix of Rafale and F35C's aboard a QE on a global fly the flag tour escorted by an Astute, T45, Horizon, FREMM and T23/26 (all equipped with Aster/CAMM) keeps Europe in the global power game. Hopefully the F35C's capabilities will compliment that of the Rafale when it becomes the sole French maritime multi-role aircraft. Add in a common future UCAV and Europe will retain a credible maritime force complete with next generation ISTAR systems.

This joint approach is one of the bright specks of light on what has been a pretty gloomy horizon.

Plus some French E2C Hawkeye (or by the time QE is worked up a group of jointly owned E2D Hawkeye?), and a detachment of Apache's to complete the mix...

 

[welsh1]

Working a lot more closely with the French is the only way to go as things stand. Lets face it weather it be at land, air or sea the costs of acquiring and running modern equipment is a lot higher than ever before, combine that with less political will to spend on defense and you have the problem we have today.

France is very similar to the UK in its capabilities and requirements. Getting more for less needs to be the way forth in R&D, servicing and manufacturing. Joint projects with the French will help keep skills and jobs in the UK by allowing us to develope products as oppose to looking to buy off the shelf from abroad. Greater numbers of home grown production will reduce unit and life time costs, which makes export easier aswell as giving us the option for greater numbers. More exports = more jobs and a better product though out the programs lifetime.

The current government is certainly going in the right direction from what is being reported. I agree with the previous posters that we should be looking at how we can work together more in training and deployments, with joint co-operation priority going to our air forces and navy‘s.

Being that one of the QE class is going to be mothballed, the French and the need a new carrier and we need more ships I wonder if they would be open to negotiation of a trade.

-My idea is that CDG would be a shared asset, with a mixed crew for when one of the QE class is in refit. -The French would get one QE class
-we would get something in the region of 1 billion - 1.5 billion pounds worth of credit to buy French ships.

This solution would keep the ship building industry in both countries ticking over nicely, and if done sooner rather than later we would have ship crew operating on the CDG sooner rather than later which is what we need for when the our QE class comes into service.

1-1.5 billion pounds could buy us a couple of mistral assault ships to replace HMS ocean, and 2-3 la Fayette frigates. Maybe we could negotiate a few more for a licensed built in the UK with French assistance to take the numbers up to 6 or more which would meet the needs of the Global combat ship C2 quite nicely.

I think a deal like this in the current climate would be agreeable to both governments.

 

[swerve]

1-1.5 billion pounds could buy us a couple of mistral assault ships to replace HMS ocean, and 2-3 la Fayette frigates. Maybe we could negotiate a few more for a licensed built in the UK with French assistance to take the numbers up to 6 or more which would meet the needs of the Global combat ship C2 quite nicely.

A quibble: La Fayette frigates are no longer offered by DCNS. The replacement is the FM400.

Also, the C2 is no more. We're down to two types of escort, Type 45 & Type 26, with the latter not fully replacing the Type 23 until the 2030s.

 

[welsh1]

A quibble: La Fayette frigates are no longer offered by DCNS. The replacement is the FM400.

Also, the C2 is no more. We're down to two types of escort, Type 45 & Type 26, with the latter not fully replacing the Type 23 until the 2030s.

my bad on the la fayette. but the FM400 seems like viable alternative if there was still to be a GP requirement.

on the T26 does this mean a reduction in hull numbers? i thought the plan was for 8 ASW and 5 GP frigates?

 

[swerve]

AFAIK the official plan is to replace the T23s one for one - eventually.

As I understand it, T23s are to be upgraded with Artisan, CAMM, etc. T26s will progressively replace them,. When upgraded T23s retire. their new kit will be transferred to new T26s. The 2087 sonars will be refurbished & moved to T26s, leaving the last T23s as GP - until replaced by GP T26.

All this will take about 20 years - if it happens.

 

[Repulse]

Interestingly the more the RN and MN work together the closer their requirements will be. This means that projects like HORIZON may actually have a chance of success in the future.

It is highly unlikely we would do some kind of trade in return of the use of a CVF. What is more likely is that the ship crew will be cross national for the second QE and maintenance is rotated with CdG. In return the French would share other assets such as their Mistrals, which would allow us to ditch Ocean without replacement focussing on our 2 LPDs in the short term. Combined with the Netherlands would make a amphibious force second only to the USN.

 

[swerve]

I'm not sure about all the details (we won't know for years), but I think you're probably on the right lines there.

 

[riksavage]

I'm not sure about all the details (we won't know for years), but I think you're probably on the right lines there.

It's a no-brainer, a French/Dutch/British Amphib force makes complete sense, respective Naval bases for one are all pretty close. The Dutch Marines & RM work very closely together and they have a limited presence at Poole.

The UK needs to retain the Bays/Albions over Ocean once the first QE is operational. The RM's Vikings were designed to fit inside the LC's and they in turn inside the Bays/Albions. The Rotterdam dock spec's are pretty similar to an Albion, so few surprises for any cross-decked UK assets and visa-versa.

The QE is big enough to operate as a hybrid carrier (fast-air/helo), which means Ocean could become largely redundant post 2015. If the QE is required to act as a strike carrier as part of a NATO/EU sanctioned mission then having a access to a Mistral for RM helo mounted operations would make sense. The trade off being French fast-air being embedded aboard the UK carrier.

Having Horizon/T45/De Zeven Provincien Class vessels in tow would provide a first-in-class AAW screen able to mitigate the most sophisticated air threats and still allow for a rotational reserve.

This new jointness offers huge savings on RFA assets, if the UK/French plan to share a carrier, then they can also share tanker duties.

I noticed in the press the UK Forces Chief General Richards had to put the Navy CnC back in his box for complaining about the ability to sustain UK Naval assets beyond a planned additional 90 days off Libya. The RN needs to stop bleating and move on, they aren't going to get the GR9's back. The ACC is now talking about deploying Apache off a Bay to cover a possible Yemen NEO - flexibility/adaptability being the name of the game.

MOD website is reporting Russian participation in the largest NATO submarine exercise for some time. UK, USN, Dutch, French, Spanish, Russian subs etc are all practicing sub-rescue drills. The rescue vehicles being given the opportunity to test their ability to mate with a variety of submarines sitting at 300 feet off the Spanish coast. I bet the post exercsie smoker was a colourful event.

 

[Troothsayer]

I noticed in the press the UK Forces Chief General Richards had to put the Navy CnC back in his box for complaining about the ability to sustain UK Naval assets beyond a planned additional 90 days off Libya. The RN needs to stop bleating and move on, they aren't going to get the GR9's back. The ACC is now talking about deploying Apache off a Bay to cover a possible Yemen NEO - flexibility/adaptability being the name of the game.
.

Having seen a transcript of the whole speech, the 1SL was massively taken out of context and infact did say the RN must move on and put its weight behind the new carriers.

The current hoohah over the navy won't bring back the Harriers (having just been sold to the USMC for £34mn) but with apparently £4bn worth of savings still to find over 4 years it may help there.

 

[kev 99]

Having seen a transcript of the whole speech, the 1SL was massively taken out of context and infact did say the RN must move on and put its weight behind the new carriers.

+1, this is all about certain journalists trying to make a political statement.

 

[1805]

Having seen a transcript of the whole speech, the 1SL was massively taken out of context and infact did say the RN must move on and put its weight behind the new carriers.

The current hoohah over the navy won't bring back the Harriers (having just been sold to the USMC for £34mn) but with apparently £4bn worth of savings still to find over 4 years it may help there.

This is true, although it is highly regrettable that the RN will be without fixed wing aircraft for maybe 10 years; for nearly all the likely interventions where the UK might want to act independently, we could get by. For most of these even Apaches would be over kill. Even the Falklands senario, with 6 T45s and T26 with CAMM (or the T23 with SW) the fleet could probably defend itself adequately without fixed wing aircraft against the likely air threat.

The focus needs to be ensuring we get at least one CVF and something to fly from it, and the RN needs to work a lot harder on running an efficient operation, cutting out the waste, to do this properly it takes time. The signs look very positive with the T26.

 

[Repulse]

Agree. As long as the powers that be accept the limitations they now have post cuts, we should focus on the future force structure to ensure it is balanced and financially achievable.

 

[Repulse]

Not often I quote the Sun newspaper, but 1SL Admiral Stanhope wrote today:

Which is why we are building two new aircraft carriers, have just commissioned the third of six new Type 45 ships, have launched the second of seven Astute-class submarines, are upgrading our helicopter fleets and will deliver 13 new Type 26 global combat ships, four fleet tankers and three support ships.

Most not really news, but I haven't heard it repeated with such clarity for a while... The number of vessels for the RFA are news to me though; older material stated 6 fleet tankers and 5 support ships pre SDSR.

 

[swerve]

Thanks for that. I'd never have thought of looking in The Scum for news. Nice to see it stated clearly, as you say.